No matter how hard managers stir, “communications” still isn’t a bucket

A recent column and blog post have created a dust-up over whether journalists should be hired to do public relations. It all started with a column by Jill Geisler at listing the 10 reasons why journalists could help public relations operations. That led to a post by Kathryn Hubbell at the Public Relations Society of America’s blog citing frustration in some parts of the PR profession with journalists invading the PR territory.

The comments at the PRSA blog turned nasty rather quickly, suggesting that Hubbell’s piece was inappropriate, short-sighted and, for some, insulting. I was bothered by the post, too, because it seemed to attack the path I had taken in my career. I was a newspaper journalist — first a reporter, then an editor — before jumping over to the public relations side of the business. I’ve always valued my media background, and so have my employers and clients. Journalists are trained to recognize a good story, write it well and explain it in easy-to-understand terms. Still, there’s more to public relations than that. There’s research, strategy and myriad other components involved in being a good PR counselor.

At first I was going to respond to the PRSA post talking about how off-base Ms. Hubbell was, but then the slew of comments that ensued took care of that for me. And as I watched those comments unfold, my opinion that some PR people are just snooty about their profession and want to defend it from outsiders changed. I came to realize that we’re all a bit like that, whether we specialize in journalism, public relations, marketing, advertising or any other form of communications. We hold our specific training and talents sacred — and rightly so.

The problem now seems to be that economic conditions have led to management teams losing sight of the fact that “communications” is not a bucket into which you can just stir in bits and pieces of professions and watch great products emerge. Journalists and their counterparts in the other various communications fields each have something to bring to the table. Unfortunately, we’ve reached an era where management is looking solely at the bottom line, hoping that by combining public relations, marketing and advertising into one discipline, with half the positions previously considered necessary, they have a winning managerial decision on their hands.

But the reality is all they’ve created is an inefficient and ineffective mess. Here’s a newsflash for those number-crunching CEOs: the people trained in those disciplines get upset when they’re told anyone can do their job, and so they should. Too many CEOs and vice presidents seem to believe that if you’re a journalist, of course you can do public relations. If you can do public relations, of course you can do marketing. And how hard can advertising really be, so why can’t the PR people or marketing staff take care of it? Oh, and internal communications — well, anyone can drop some cute stories into a company newsletter, right?

I’m a former journalist who now does public relations. The leap can be made. There are plenty of people who can be trained to cover more than one discipline. But it takes years of training, experience or both to make that transition and reach a point where you are comfortable saying, “Yeah, I can do more than one job for you.” But even then, it doesn’t mean you want to or that you should have to.

The company managers trying to figure out how to handle media relations, public relations, marketing, advertising and internal communications need to get a grip on reality. They should stop trying to save money by forcing people to work outside their disciplines, and then holding them accountable when they don’t get the biggest bang for the buck.

As I was thinking about this over the past few days while contemplating this blog post, I remembered a great lesson on figuring out the difference between several of the communication arts disciplines. It goes like this:

If the circus is coming to town and you paint a sign saying ‘Circus Coming to the Fairground Saturday’, that’s advertising. If you put the sign on the back of an elephant and walk it into town, that’s promotion. If the elephant walks through the mayor’s flower bed and it makes the nightly news, that’s publicity. And if you get the mayor to laugh about it in the news story, THAT’s public relations.”

Maybe those of us involved in communications should begin communicating more with our managers, starting with delivering a copy of that story.

(Image courtesy of Jake Khrone’s Flickr feed.)


Ads don’t kill people, people kill people

Advertising has been blamed for a lot of things in this world — including hyperactive children, obese adults and, now, killing WalMart employees.

The tragedy of a man’s death in a New York state WalMart on “Black Friday” this year really has me thinking we need to put an end to the madness that is the post-Thanksgiving holiday shopping stampede. In the latest case, that stampede was literal and Jdimytai Damour, 34, was crushed when a throng of unruly shoppers decided a great deal on Christmas presents was worth more than civility or even human life.

For years, we have watched as retailers have opened their doors earlier, many now forcing employees to be ready and smiling at 4 a.m. We have seen the advertising intensify. We have seen the deals seemingly get so good no one can possibly pass them up. Retailers have increased their pitchmen’s shouting volume, their outlandish claims and their audacity to force employees to bid an early goodnight to family as they prepare to earn a bleary-eyed buck on the day after Thanksgiving.

It has been annoying and frustrating — but is it responsible for a man’s death?

Mr. Damour’s family has filed a lawsuit claiming that WalMart didn’t provide enough security that fateful morning but also, “engaged in specific marketing and advertising techniques to specifically attract a large crowd and create an environment of frenzy and mayhem.”

If this case proceeds to a judgment against WalMart or even an out-of-court settlement, you’ll see a growing crowd of salivating trial lawyers the likes of which even the WalMart stampeders would cower from.

Mr. Damour’s family deserves our sympathy and, if at all possible, those responsible for killing this man deserve to be punished. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that neither WalMart nor their advertising agencies crushed Mr. Damour. WalMart shoppers are the killers in this scenario.

Advertising informs, titillates and entices. Advertising drives us to take action and be at a certain place at a certain time for a certain deal. But advertising in no way is responsible for people giving up all sense of decency and storming a discount retailer so they can save a few hundred dollars.

According to several news reports, shoppers even refused to leave the store during the police investigation, claiming they had been standing in line all night and had a right to be there.

No amount or style of advertising is responsible for that kind of ruthless, cold-hearted sentiment.

Ads don’t kill people, people kill people.